Harshest penalties for traffic law violations

[Bickendan]

At least here, school buses flash yellow lights to warn drivers that they're stopping and going to hold up traffic.

[SSOWorld]

At least here, school buses flash yellow lights to warn drivers that they're stopping and going to hold up traffic.

Those are prohibited in a few states - they flash the red ones well in advance.

without consideration of the facts, there is no due process.  If you hit someone because they're either a moron or actively suicidal, and they take off full speed into your grille faster than any human reflex can avert the collision, then you need to have every opportunity to prove in court that you are not responsible. 

If you drive through giant red flashing lights on a very visible yellow bus and a big red octagon that says STOP and in some jurisdictions even a big barrier or sorts, that's a good indication that you're not responsible. Like with any other traffic violation, I'm sure you'd have the opportunity to prove in court that you are not responsible.

Don't forget the freaking strobe light on top of the bus.

[Truvelo]

The very first time I rented a car in the US I committed two violations in the first hour of driving. I passed a school bus with its lights flashing. At the time I didn't realise you had to stop. I'm used to the rules over here where you treat school buses as parked vehicles. The other offence was passing a red traffic light. That was because the signal wasn't next to the stop line. When I eventually stopped I was in the middle of the road blocking cross traffic so I had to continue.

[deathtopumpkins]

I came rather close to passing a school bus on my way to, erm, school a few days ago. Was driving on a 2-lane road with an SL of 40 mph, when a bus came along the other way. Perfectly normal, I see a bus through here almost every morning, so I proceed at speed. The bus slams on its brakes and the red lights come on maybe 30 feet before passing me. I'm not going to pass it because I'm not willingly going to break a law as severe as that, so I slam on my brakes too, much to the dismay of everything in the backseat of my car. I think cases like that are proof that sometimes passing a school bus should be forgiven.

[Truvelo]

^ Are there no regulations relating to the time the bus stops and the red lights coming on? Maybe a few seconds of amber should flash first?

[deathtopumpkins]

I'm pretty sure there are, I just guessed that the driver forgot to hit them in time, because at least here in Hampton, the driver has to press a button for each set of lights.

[Scott5114]

On the Carpenter buses I used to ride at school the driver only had to press a switch to turn the yellow lights on. Opening the door automatically activated the sign, red lights, and turned the yellow lights off.

[SteveG1988]

On a subject of penalties, NJ has a law on 65mph roads. All Fines Doubled. I do not know what the law is exactly, but it may apply to any violation, or it may refer just to speeding. PA does not do this, neither does any state where the speed limits are 65+.

[SidS1045]

Kind of curious about which state has the harshest penalties overall.

Hands-down winner has to be Massachusetts, but not because of any statutory penalty on the books.

If you decide to contest a traffic citation, you must pay an administrative fee of $275, which the Commonwealth keeps even if you are found not responsible.  Yes, that's right...you pay for exercising your right to force the Commonwealth to prove the charge against you.

And yes, the state appeals court is considering the constitutionality of this even as I write it.

[ghYHZ]

In Nova Scotia we have "Stunting"........driving 50km/h over the limit. It's an automatic seven-day licence suspension with the vehicle impounded on the spot for seven days. Then there's two fines — one for the Stunting with a fine of $2,410.21 and a loss of six points and then one for speeding with a fine of $282.71, three points and a further seven-day licence suspension.

[agentsteel53]

In Nova Scotia we have "Stunting"........driving 50km/h over the limit. It's an automatic seven-day licence suspension with the vehicle impounded on the spot for seven days. Then there's two fines — one for the Stunting with a fine of $2,410.21 and a loss of six points and then one for speeding with a fine of $282.71, three points and a further seven-day licence suspension.

that's 30mph over the limit.  which is usually approaching reckless, but not so consistently that it needs to have its own special word: "stunting".

I've done 98 in a 65 in rural Utah for about 80 miles straight and "stunting" would be the last word I'd use to describe that behavior.  I was not reckless in the slightest, and - given that I had absolutely no audience - I certainly wasn't going for the show.

I would imagine Nova Scotia has some similarly rural roads with low traffic counts.

[Duke87]

New York similarly has a law where if they catch you doing 30 over they can hit you with a reckless driving charge. Which is a misdemeanor and thus gives you a criminal record if convicted.

New York is also known for being a relatively tough state on points and license suspension. Three speeding tickets in 18 months alone gets you a 90-day suspension.

Compare that to Connecticut, where speeding only gets you one point and you need 12 points in 24 months to get suspended.

[agentsteel53]

New York similarly has a law where if they catch you doing 30 over they can hit you with a reckless driving charge. Which is a misdemeanor and thus gives you a criminal record if convicted.

that definitely needs to be made a judgment call.  I could do the Northway at 100mph because the traffic counts are so low.

[mightyace]

^^^

Definitely.  Going 100 on the Northway, which I presume is 65mph is much less dangerous than going 60 on a 25mph residential street even though both are 35mph over the limit!

It really should be a percentage, but how many cops or judges will get that right?

[agentsteel53]

^^^

Definitely.  Going 100 on the Northway, which I presume is 65mph is much less dangerous than going 60 on a 25mph residential street even though both are 35mph over the limit!

It really should be a percentage, but how many cops or judges will get that right?

except it should not quite be a percentage either.  90 in a 50 has a good possibility of being unsafe.  9 in a 5, quite likely very safe.  

(I don't know if 5mph is ever an enforceable speed limit on a public road.  27 in a 15 is a less good example, but still has a good probability of being safe - imagine finding yourself on a low-quality dirt road that you've driven many times, and you're in a 4x4 vehicle.)

there is indeed a set of calculations that could balance "absolute amount" vs. "percentage" but indeed, how many cops or judges could be bothered to deal with that - or, even, look at the chart they are conveniently issued?

this is why a hard speed limit is just a stupid idea.  there should definitely be a recommended speed, but sometimes exceeding it by 30 is not a problem, and sometimes going 30 under it is still too fast.  Imagine that same Northway (whose speed limit is indeed 65) at night, in freezing fog, covered in ice - with 15-20 being the safe operating speed.

of course, what cop or judge wants to think when they could be collecting revenue instead?

[formulanone]

Hands-down winner has to be Massachusetts, but not because of any statutory penalty on the books.

If you decide to contest a traffic citation, you must pay an administrative fee of $275, which the Commonwealth keeps even if you are found not responsible.  Yes, that's right...you pay for exercising your right to force the Commonwealth to prove the charge against you.

And yes, the state appeals court is considering the constitutionality of this even as I write it.

Yeah, read about that in the January 2012 issue of Car & Driver, and there's nothing more to say than it's a complete bullshit fine.

Makes the $4 paperwork fee I once paid for proof of a ticket dismissal seem a lot less "sting-y".

[Takumi]

30 over is also reckless driving in VA, but I believe 81+ MPH, no matter what the posted speed limit is, is as well.

[agentsteel53]

why do the good citizens of Virginia tolerate this sort of horse-shittery?

[Takumi]

I don't really see it enforced much, especially on rural interstates.

[agentsteel53]

I don't really see it enforced much, especially on rural interstates.

I've gotten pulled over for 73 in a 65, 200 feet past the WV state line on I-81 (where I had happily been doing 73 in a 70).  In my opinion, VA is plenty harsh.

[Takumi]

I haven't been on that part of 81 in awhile, but that does sound like something a state trooper would do. On the rural parts of I-95, I-85 and I-64, particularly the 70 MPH sections on the first two, I see police going 80+ all the time.

[Truvelo]

I was stopped last month for doing 83 in a 70 on I-77 in VA. The sheriff said that speed is classed as dangerous driving by his department but after he looked at my licence he did me just for the speed which was $6 for every 1mph over the limit. He said I saved $150 by removing the dangerous driving charge. He also mentioned 81 is the speed at which they start pulling people over for on that road.

[agentsteel53]

being pulled over for 83 in a 70 doesn't seem unreasonable.  but to add a "dangerous driving" charge to it certainly is.  I've driven I-77 and while there are some mountainous sections, 83 in a 70 in good weather is not dangerous at all.

[realjd]

If one kid is saved from being killed or seriously hurt by a car while getting off the bus, the law is appropriate, and justified.

Not this argument again. Saving a single life isn't necessarily good justification for ANY law. I guarantee that banning cars completely would save a large number of lives, even those of children. Would it be worth it? Absolutely not. I also guarantee that banning swimming pools would save the lives of children. Worth it? Nope.

Nothing in life is without risk. You can't legislate it away.

And FWIW, I have no problems with school buses. I just hate the "if it saves even one life then it's worth it" crap. I have similar arguments with people regarding stupid post-9/11 security theater (primarily, the TSA).

[Duke87]

New York similarly has a law where if they catch you doing 30 over they can hit you with a reckless driving charge. Which is a misdemeanor and thus gives you a criminal record if convicted.

that definitely needs to be made a judgment call.  I could do the Northway at 100mph because the traffic counts are so low.

Well, as with anything else a cop can pull you over for, it is a judgment call.

But it's not unique. Reckless driving being a misdemeanor rather than just a moving violation is, in my understanding, pretty universal. As is the standard of 30 mph or 50 km/h over being the cutoff. Unless you're Virginia, in which case it's only 20 over, or anything over 80 (which in some cases can be as little as 10 over).